Even if the NFL won't change the overtime rule after the determination of which team will receive, AT LEAST change it to where the determination of who gets the ball first has some merit. Such as:

1. Team with most yardage; if tied
2. Team with most 1st downs; if tied
3. Team with most time of possession; if tied
4. Coin flip

BMX Bandit said:

---

Given the percentage of coin flip winner that win the game, there is no reason to change how who gets the ball first is decided

---

What percentage coin flip winner would make you say otherwise? Isn't it like 55% now with the new OT rules vs 60% before when it was sudden death?

Whoever scored first gets the ball first.

Start then on the 20 with 1:30 on the clock and 1 TO.

No matter what next team gets a shot. Same situation.

If it's still tied after that then it's sudden death. Next to score anything wins.

expresswrittenconsent said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Given the percentage of coin flip winner that win the game, there is no reason to change how who gets the ball first is decided

---

What percentage coin flip winner would make you say otherwise? Isn't it like 55% now with the new OT rules vs 60% before when it was sudden death?

---

its 52% i believe. something much bigger than that.


I don't like the NFL OT rules. But the issue of "who gets the ball first" is not the problem with it.

Have the starting QB''s arm wrestle.

Quote:

---

The sport is called football......not offense. I am not of the belief that both teams need to have the ball if the first team scores a touchdown.

---

But your argument works against you. The Patriots didn't win football...they won offense. The sport is called football. Why should the Patriots be going to the Super Bowl when only 2/3 of their team got them there?

the NFL should copy college football's overtime rules

everyone loves college football overtime

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

The sport is called football......not offense. I am not of the belief that both teams need to have the ball if the first team scores a touchdown.

---

But your argument works against you. The Patriots didn't win football...they won offense. The sport is called football. Why should the Patriots be going to the Super Bowl when only 2/3 of their team got them there?

---

2/3 of their team got them there? Guess the first 4 quarters count for nothing.

ATM9000 said:

---

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

The sport is called football......not offense. I am not of the belief that both teams need to have the ball if the first team scores a touchdown.

---

But your argument works against you. The Patriots didn't win football...they won offense. The sport is called football. Why should the Patriots be going to the Super Bowl when only 2/3 of their team got them there?

---

2/3 of their team got them there? Guess the first 4 quarters count for nothing.

---

Maybe you missed it, but the first 4 quarters resulted in a tie.

expresswrittenconsent said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

The sport is called football......not offense. I am not of the belief that both teams need to have the ball if the first team scores a touchdown.

---

But your argument works against you. The Patriots didn't win football...they won offense. The sport is called football. Why should the Patriots be going to the Super Bowl when only 2/3 of their team got them there?

---

2/3 of their team got them there? Guess the first 4 quarters count for nothing.

---

Maybe you missed it, but the first 4 quarters resulted in a tie.

---

No... I got that point. But the whole team got them there. How the overtime panned out is irrelevant to that fact.

So then you did miss the point you were replying to.

expresswrittenconsent said:

---

So then you did miss the point you were replying to.

---

You are missing the point. Both sides of the ball had plenty of time to 'win' the game in regulation... they played well enough for their team to earn the tie. The whole team got the Pats the victory.

I hate when people say NFL OT is unfair. If the defense stops for a FG or punt, they have a massive advantage to win in that they absolutely know what they need for victory much like the second team in a college OT period.

there's your agenda. thx. seems like neither of us is missing the point.

Quote:

---

I hate when people say NFL OT is unfair. If the defense stops for a FG or punt, they have a massive advantage to win in that they absolutely know what they need for victory much like the second team in a college OT period.

---

Your second sentence is literally a confirmation on the unfairness of NFL OT, completely with a counterexample to a fair one.

I'm not even sure why people are against this. The Chiefs scored the same amount of points in half the time the Patriots did, and yet you don't want to see what they would have done in response to a TD? With that offense? It's insane.

toucan82 said:

---

the NFL should copy college football's overtime rules

everyone loves college football overtime

---

College football teams also have much bigger gameday rosters and are better equipped to handle to 5OT games

We don't need college rules in their entirety. Just give both teams a possession.

This years stats: 15 OT, 3 scored TD on the first drive. So, potentially, 3 games would have been extended under those new rules all reason.

2017 is was 2 games.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

I hate when people say NFL OT is unfair. If the defense stops for a FG or punt, they have a massive advantage to win in that they absolutely know what they need for victory much like the second team in a college OT period.

---

Your second sentence is literally a confirmation on the unfairness of NFL OT, completely with a counterexample to a fair one.

I'm not even sure why people are against this. The Chiefs scored the same amount of points in half the time the Patriots did, and yet you don't want to see what they would have done in response to a TD? With that offense? It's insane.

---

Both teams getting a possession doesn't equal 'fairness'. When the second team can go and play call knowing fully and absolutely what it will take to win then it's clear... the second team has a massive information advantage. That's a huge deal in a situation where one score wins. If anything, that's what makes college footballs OT (amongst other reasons) sort of not fair and really silly.

At least in the NFL to get that information advantage, a team has to go out and earn it. That's infinitely more fair than this each team gets an equal look nonsense.

Quote:

---

At least in the NFL to get that information advantage, a team has to go out and earn it. That's infinitely more fair than this each team gets an equal look nonsense.

---

You're totally ignoring that a team has to risk losing the game outright to try and "earn that advantage", of course actual "more fair" (to be technically precise since you want to be) looks like nonsense to you.

Coin flips in football shouldn't happen anyway. Home team always "wins the toss" and decides what they want. Records (then tiebreakers) for Super Bowl.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

At least in the NFL to get that information advantage, a team has to go out and earn it. That's infinitely more fair than this each team gets an equal look nonsense.

---

You're totally ignoring that a team has to risk losing the game outright to try and "earn that advantage", of course actual "more fair" (to be technically precise since you want to be) looks like nonsense to you.

Coin flips in football shouldn't happen anyway. Home team always "wins the toss" and decides what they want. Records (then tiebreakers) for Super Bowl.

---

I'm not ignoring that... I get it. I just don't care when a win comes down to a single score. It's not some crazy daunting and unfair proposition for a team to just hold the other team out of the end zone. If they do it, FG or not they have a tremendous advantage in both knowing exactly what they need to win the game and being able to possibly without punching it in the end zone. By the way, you know how many offensive possessions in the NFL actually end with a TD? Less than 25%. Yeah... so there's high risk and a lot at stake for the defense... ok? It's quasi-sudden death to win a game... there should be a lot of risk and stakes in every situation. If you guarantee possession for both teams, you aren't making things better. You are just making having the second possession more valuable without a team really having to earn that.

And I'd be 100% on board to your second point. Actually in my perfect NFL world, there'd be no OT in the regular season and some sort of team record tie breaker for every coin flip call in a game (kickoff, OT, whatever)

Add non random strategy: instead of coin flip, let coach's "bid" on how far back they are willing to start. Whatever coach is willing to start farther back gets the ball at that position.

If Chiefs Patriots go to OT, and KC is home team, refs ask each coach for a bid.

If Reid bids own 21.5 yard line, and Belichick bids own 25 yard line, Chiefs get the ball at 21.5 to start game.

Iowaggie said:

---

Add non random strategy: instead of coin flip, let coach's "bid" on how far back they are willing to start. Whatever coach is willing to start farther back gets the ball at that position.

If Chiefs Patriots go to OT, and KC is home team, refs ask each coach for a bid.

If Reid bids own 21.5 yard line, and Belichick bids own 25 yard line, Chiefs get the ball at 21.5 to start game.

---

Sure, if we are talking things that will never happen. Would you go with a single closed bid, or a name that tune style back and forth?

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

The sport is called football......not offense. I am not of the belief that both teams need to have the ball if the first team scores a touchdown.

---

But your argument works against you. The Patriots didn't win football...they won offense. The sport is called football. Why should the Patriots be going to the Super Bowl when only 2/3 of their team got them there?

---

How in the world does that work against what I said?????/

Kansas City DEFENSE had a plenty of chances to stop New England from scoring a touchdown and they failed....thus they deserved to lose the game

Do any of you remember Packers vs Arizona Cardinal playoff game from 2009? Packers get the ball first and the DEFENSE makes a play and strips the ball from Aaron Rodgers and the Cardinals won the game in overtime without their offense ever stepping on the field.

I remember a Steelers vs Cowboys game where the Steelers got the ball first and Rothlisberger throws an interception that is returned to the 1 inch line and the cowboys kick an 18 yard field goal to win the game.

If your defense gets a stop on the opponents side of the field, or gets a turnover they have put their offense in a tremendous position to win the game by field goal.


The team that loses the coin flip wins overtime 48% of the time. If the team that won the coin flip won the game 60% of the time instead of 52 then I would agree for a change.

48-52 is about as even as one can get.


I think college overtime is garbage and fake football. The NFL does it perfectly.
I loved the rule change that the team that gets the ball first has to score a touchdown to win instead of a field goal.

This notion that Kansas City should have had a chance at the ball after giving up a touchdown in overtime reeks of participation trophy nonsense.

Agreed on all counts.



Also, to the poster saying NE only won 2/3 of the game because they didn't win defense, then you have to concede that KC definitely didn't win defense. On the contrary. Giving up a touchdown after a long, sustained drive and failing at all chances to stop the opposition and force a punt (or field goal at the very least, which would have preserved a chance to get the ball back per the rules) is a fail on defense.

eATMup-Reveille said:

---

Even if the NFL won't change the overtime rule after the determination of which team will receive, AT LEAST change it to where the determination of who gets the ball first has some merit. Such as:

1. Team with most yardage; if tied
2. Team with most 1st downs; if tied
3. Team with most time of possession; if tied
4. Coin flip

---

You want to reward the team that was less efficient?

_lefraud_ said:

---

eATMup-Reveille said:

---

Even if the NFL won't change the overtime rule after the determination of which team will receive, AT LEAST change it to where the determination of who gets the ball first has some merit. Such as:

1. Team with most yardage; if tied
2. Team with most 1st downs; if tied
3. Team with most time of possession; if tied
4. Coin flip

---

You want to reward the team that was less efficient

---

Not only that, but the team that leads in those categories is tied due to mistakes such as turnovers, penalties or special team miscues. Do you want to reward a team for that?

toucan82 said:

---

the NFL should copy college football's overtime rules

everyone loves college football overtime

---

Troy Aikman doesn't...despises it actually. And so do other NFL'ers.

Edit to add: he feels it should either be how it was before any changes or both teams get a shot with the ball, even if the first team scored a td.

The fact you start at the 25 in college is ridiculous.

I don't like the college football overtime either, for the following reasons:

1. Too many ridiculous "basketball scores" (i.e. A&M vs. LSU, Aggie win or not, that was utterly ridiculous).

2. The stats get all skewed. Fantasy league players would never go for it.

You could just play another quarter.

expresswrittenconsent said:

---

Iowaggie said:

---

Add non random strategy: instead of coin flip, let coach's "bid" on how far back they are willing to start. Whatever coach is willing to start farther back gets the ball at that position.

If Chiefs Patriots go to OT, and KC is home team, refs ask each coach for a bid.

If Reid bids own 21.5 yard line, and Belichick bids own 25 yard line, Chiefs get the ball at 21.5 to start game.

---

Sure, if we are talking things that will never happen. Would you go with a single closed bid, or a name that tune style back and forth?

---

Single closed bid, delivered by the hottest cheerleader from both teams.

As a secondary award, the refs deem which cheerleader is hottest, and that team gets to take one defensive player off the field of their choosing.

Quote:

---

I think college overtime is garbage and fake football. The NFL does it perfectly.
I loved the rule change that the team that gets the ball first has to score a touchdown to win instead of a field goal.

This notion that Kansas City should have had a chance at the ball after giving up a touchdown in overtime reeks of participation trophy nonsense.

---

I could respond to each line, but we'd just be talking past each other. Personally, I just want to maximize the number of players that determine the outcome of the game and that the entire game isn't cheapened by the OT. I think we were robbed of seeing either greatness by Maholmes or greatness by the Pat defense. No questions would have been left unanswered. No other sports OT works this way.

But, this highlighted section is just "old man yells at cloud" stuff. if anything, BOTH OT rules are fake football, and they should play an entire quarter out. You could do this too, and have it be restricted to the playoffs. Your last sentence makes even less sense, as you could say this about the whole game. Why not just end the game if a team scores a TD on the first possession? Because it's stupid is why. We shouldn't do it for OT either.

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of the old rules back (actual sudden death from the jump), but home field wins all coin tosses and some tie breaker for Super Bowl. It now puts pressure on the away team to not just play for the tie and increases the value of being at home.

How about the team with the last lead gets the ball first. Score is 28-31. Team with 28 kicks a field goal to tie. Go to OT, team that had 31 first gets the ball first. I think this is fair and would give incentive to teams trailing by a field goal to play for the win in regulation more.

Iowaggie said:

---

expresswrittenconsent said:

---

Iowaggie said:

---

Add non random strategy: instead of coin flip, let coach's "bid" on how far back they are willing to start. Whatever coach is willing to start farther back gets the ball at that position.

If Chiefs Patriots go to OT, and KC is home team, refs ask each coach for a bid.

If Reid bids own 21.5 yard line, and Belichick bids own 25 yard line, Chiefs get the ball at 21.5 to start game.

---

Sure, if we are talking things that will never happen. Would you go with a single closed bid, or a name that tune style back and forth?

---

Single closed bid, delivered by the hottest cheerleader from both teams.

As a secondary award, the refs deem which cheerleader is hottest, and that team gets to take one defensive player off the field of their choosing.

---

They tried it in the XFL to mixed results.